Hi,
Yes, comparing against one rig is difficult, and we are lucky the top rig in
the list is rather affordable.
What would it be if the Hilberling PT-8000A was blowing everything else.
One the other hand, a truly faire rule is rather complex to elaborate, and we
have to keep in consideration what is economically and technically feasible at
the given time.
I'm thinking of something in the same vein as (don't take the actual numbers in
consideration) :
"Generated side noise no 20dB worst at 5KHz from the carrier than the 5 best
transceivers costing no more than 3 times the monthly minimum wage".
That said, as you stated, the test equipment and measuring conditions are very
important to give a meaning to the numbers...
73,
Yan.
---
Yannick DEVOS - XV4Y
http://www.qscope.org/
http://xv4y.radioclub.asia/
Le 19 oct. 2014 à 09:41, cq-contest-request@contesting.com a écrit :
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 01:06:23 -0000
> From: "Randy Thompson K5ZD" <k5zd@charter.net>
> To: <k9yc@arrl.net>, <cq-contest@contesting.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Handicap For Dirty Rigs
> Message-ID: <041901cfeb38$e6b066d0$b4113470$@charter.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> It is true that some rigs (depending on how they are operated) can produce
> signals that appear wider than normal. Can you think of a way to express
> this in technical terms rather than using a K3 as a reference. Contesting
> needs to have a dialog around what is the accepted standard for signal width
> or "cleanliness".
>
> What test equipment would some use to evaluate their own signal in the
> shack?
>
> What would be a good test standard for someone listening to capture the
> essence of the signal quality?
>
>
> Randy, K5ZD
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|